Tag: GMO

To make cassava plants resistant to ‘mosaic virus’, which can cause almost total loss of these plants in an epidemic, Australian researchers tried to “recombine the virus’s DNA” by genome editing, using CRISPR-Cas9.

Both frightening and unexpected results were obtained. The modified cassava plants did not develop any resistance to mosaic virus. On the contrary, the intervention encouraged viruses to “evolve faster”. “We have seen a mutant virus resistant to our procedure appear in the laboratory,” explained Devang Mehta, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Alberta (Canada).

The researchers have therefore called for “laboratory tests be carried out in the future to detect possible viral mutations before launching field trials“.

Futura Science, Nathalie Mayer (29/04/2019) – Des plantes OGM favorisent la propagation de virus mutés

On 25 July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on the status of new gene-editing techniques in living organisms. It estimated that plants “improved” with the new genetic techniques were not to be exempt from current legislation.

Regardless of the technique[1] used to obtain the new plant, “in today’s judgment, the Court of Justice takes the view, first of all, that organisms obtained by mutagenesis are GMOs within the meaning of the GMO Directive. […] The Court considers that the risks linked to the use of these new mutagenesis techniques might prove to be similar to those that result from the production and release of a GMO through transgenesis, […] and these new techniques make it possible to produce genetically modified varieties at a rate out of all proportion to those resulting from the application of conventional methods of mutagenesis”.

Confédération Paysanne, a French agricultural union, and eight other associations had referred the matter to the Court of Justice, after bringing an action before the Conseil d’État (Council of State, France) to contest French legislation which exempts organisms obtained by mutagenesis from “the obligations imposed by Directive 2001/18/EC”.

Plants obtained using these new improvement techniques are therefore subject to a rigorous assessment of the risks they present for human health and the environment, and also to traceability, labelling and monitoring obligations.

The French government has welcomed “this eagerly awaited clarification” in a press release.

Le Figaro, Jean-Luc Nothias (25/07/2018), Sciences et Avenir, Rachel Mulot (25/07/2018)

In Burkina Faso, the National Agency of Biosafety (NAB) is set to authorise the release of genetically modified mosquitoes in the coming weeks. Since 2012, the village of Sourkoudiguin has been a focal point for the Target Malaria project. Financed to the tune of $70 million (almost €60 million) by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the project aims to release 10,000 genetically modified Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes “in several villages in the region to combat malaria, the main cause of death in Burkina Faso”. This release should be “the first step in the study prior to testing a more complex technology, namely gene drive, developed in the early 2000s by Imperial College London”.

“These genetically modified mosquitoes are sterile males”, explained Doctor Abdoulaye Diabaté, the main project coordinator. “When they mate with wild female mosquitoes, the eggs will not reach maturity—hence no young will be produced. As far as he is concerned, “approximately 20 insect generations are required, i.e. it should take less than two years” to have a major impact.

Raising project awareness amongst the indigenous populations is not without its problems and the desire for dialogue “contrasts with on-site reality”. After the researchers had left, one inhabitant of Pala voiced regret: “If I had known, I would have asked them, ‘And what if it doesn’t work? What are the risks for our village?’” Another could not hide his concerns: “I wonder how they can capture modified mosquitoes once they’ve been released, if there’s a problem. But they reassured us that they would recognise them”. A primary school teacher in Sourkoudiguin asked: “How do you translate GMO into dioula?” He added that: “I think that the locals do not understand everything. They have been told that the aim is to wipe out malaria but they are the ones thrown in the deep end”.

The Citizens’ Collective for Agroecology has organised a march to Ouagadougou to demonstrate against the Target Malaria project. They want answers to the following questions: “Could modifying the gene of an insect create mutants that would transmit other diseases? This also raises the ecology issue: a reduction in this species poses the risk of an ecological vacuum, thereby1disrupting the food chain. There are so many doubts—we do not consent to being used as guinea pigs”. In this country, which has already dealt with Monsanto’s failed genetically modified cotton experiment, there is general concern about the lack of information given to locals (see Release of GMO mosquitoes – the people of Burkina Faso react).

Director of the NAB laboratory,   Oumar Traoré, gives reassurance: “We are assessing the potential threats to the environment and human and animal health. There is no such thing as zero risk but the necessary mechanisms must be in place to manage any problems. Otherwise, we will not authorise the project”.

Every year, malaria claims almost 440,000 lives around the world. 9.8 million cases were reported in Burkina Faso in 2016, culminating in 4,000 deaths.

Le Monde, Sophie Douce (29/06/2018) – Des moustiques OGM contre le paludisme : le projet qui fait débat au Burkina

On 6 July in the Netherlands, the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment was authorised to release 15 million transgenic mosquitoes. They will be released over a period of twelve months on the Island of Saba, in the Netherlands Antilles.

These genetically modified male mosquitoes are intended to combat proliferation of the Aedes Aegypti mosquitoes, carriers of the Dengue, Zika and Chikungunya viruses. They do this by “transmitting a killer gene to their offspring before the latter is sexually mature”. They have already been used in Brazil, the Cayman Islands and even Panama (see Brazil:  genetically modified  mosquitoes to eradicate the Zika virus?). 

The Dutch Institute believes that these modified mosquitoes “do not have any negative impact on health and the environment. (…) The GMO Bureau concludes that the potential negative effects on humans, health and the environment under the conditions described in Oxitec’s [manufacturer) documentation and in the context of standard vector control are negligible compared to the non-modified mosquito, Aedes aegypti“.

Further reading:

• California: 20,000 GMO mosquitoes about to be released to combat viruses
• Genetically modified mosquitoes – a risk-free approach to combat carrier diseases?
• Genetically modified mosquitoes: exercise caution!

AFP (25/07/2017)

In Fresno, California, 20,000 genetically modified mosquitoes are about to be released in an attempt to reduce or even eradicate one species, namely Aedes aegypti, a carrier of numerous viruses such as the Zika virus, yellow fever, Dengue fever or Chikungunya.

According to a memo from Verily, a subsidiary of Alphabet (Google’s parent company), which specialises in life sciences research, “mosquitoes kill more humans than all other animals put together“. A branch of the Google company therefore decided to combat the spread of  Aedes aegypti mosquitoes.

Frédéric Jourdain, an Engineer at the Centre national d’expertise sur les vecteurs de maladies (CNEV) (French National Centre of Expertise in Disease Vectors), explained that, “the aim of this experiment is to modify the genetic heritage of mosquitoes by introducing a gene that makes the mosquitoes antibiotic-dependent. These males carry the gene and when they mate with female mosquitoes, the larvae develop this dependency “. Without these antibiotics, genetically modified mosquitoes cannot develop and will die.

The American Environmental Protection Agency is closely monitoring the experiment and believes that the initiative is safe. Frédéric Jourdain nevertheless urges caution: “If a species is eradicated, this will create an ecological niche that could promote the arrival of new vectors“. 

Le Point, Marie Raveau (19/07/2017)

According to the French National Institute for Agronomic Research (INRA), 40% of scientific articles on genetically modified organisms (GMO) tend to be influenced by the biotechnology industries. Consequently, “49% of the conclusions are likely to be in favour of seed industries”.

To arrive at these conclusions, the INRA scientists analysed 672 articles published between 1991 and 2015 regarding the efficacy and sustainability of certain GMO plants that produce a bacterium known as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt).

The INRA thus denounced interest links between scientists and GMO manufacturers. Fingers have been pointed at two types of relationships: “Either the authors are employed by industry or one of the authors is financing all or part of the study”. Reference is essentially made to American Companies Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences and DuPont Pioneer and the Swiss Company, Syngenta, which holds 60% of the seed market.

Le Monde (Stéphane Horel) 20/12/2016

On the occasion of the thirteenth Conference of the Parties at the Biological Diversity Convention held in Cancan, Mexico, over 150 non-governmental organisations called for a moratorium on “gene drive” techniques aimed at modifying the genome of a species in order to eradicate or preserve it.

New genome engineering techniques look promising in terms of biomedical research but also raise concerns for those mindful of the environment. Among these new techniques, the latest involve “editing an entire species with new traits by introducing gene constructions capable of spreading to the whole population”.

New genome editing methods, some of which use the Crispr-CAS9 tool, facilitate gene handling on a vast scale.

The NGOs who signed the appeal explained that, “The gene drive is deliberately designed to spread and persist, with no consideration for national borders. To date, there is no international process in place to govern the cross-border effects of a gene drive”.

The NGOs added that the consequences of a gene drive operation are only partly known: “It is impossible to adequately predict the ecological cascading effects of diffusion [of a genetic modification] in wild ecosystems”. They emphasise that the genes introduced “could diffuse irreversibly and cross the species barrier”. Jim Thomas, Program Director at the ETC Group, acknowledged the fact that, “A single organism erroneously introduced into the environment can, in theory, alter the entire species, i.e. the stakes are high”.

Eric Marois, scientist at the Strasbourg Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology, works on gene drive systems aimed at eradicating malaria-carrying mosquitoes. For his part, he states that,  “This kind of reaction is perfectly understandable. But if, today, the call for a moratorium on gene drive techniques is upheld, in a context where there is still no regulatory framework, a ban on laboratory research into such topics will be even more frustrating”.

Professor Richard Corlett at the Chinese Academy of Sciences is in favour of a moratorium on operational applications since no regulatory framework exists. However, as far as he is concerned, a research moratorium poses a problem: “From year to year, it will be easier for a large number of laboratories and countries to develop gene drive systems. A research moratorium implies that any molecular biologist would know, in theory, how to develop this kind of system without learning how to control it”. These techniques are “inexpensive and undetectable but do we want these systems to be developed only by States, companies or scientists without any control mechanism in place?”

Le Monde (Stéphane Foucart) 05/12/2016

Photo : Pixabay, DR.

Scientists at MIT have incorporated sensors in “carbon nanotubes” and placed them in spinach leaves enabling the plant to detect a wide range of molecules. These “nanobionic spinach” have detected explosives in subterranean waters, “hydrogen peroxide”, sarin gas and even “trinitrotoluene” – a type of explosive.

Spinach fitted with sensors [1] could therefore be used to reveal numerous pollutants and trace elements. The plants could also be used to locate dryness and several changes in soil properties.

This is a first step towards digitising plant information. The ultimate aim is to improve our knowledge of environmental sciences, agriculture and health.

[1] The spinach is not edible!

Paris Singularity (Loïc Bardon) 24/11/2016

Photo : Pixabay, DR.

Some American farmers are wondering if GMO cultivation is still worthwhile. With the fall in cereal prices, GMOs cost up to twice as much to plant as traditional seeds.

In the United States, the debate on GMOs does not focus on public health concerns or biodiversity, as it does in Europe, but rather on financial aspects: return on investment.

Because the cost of GMO seeds constantly increases each year: “Farmers spend four times more on corn seeds than they did twenty years ago when Monsanto marketed its first GMOs”. However, the price at which farmers sell their corn has not increased: “There is no guaranteed return on investment these days,” laments former American farmer Joe Logan, quoted by the Wall Street Journal. The farmer is intending to abandon GMOs next year to return to traditional seeds.

 Furthermore, GMOs do not keep their promises in the developed countries. The yield on American crops will not be any better than that harvested in Europe: “The two biggest producers, Monsanto and Dupont, have led the world to believe that substantial increases in yield and savings have bee made by using fewer pesticides”, added the Echos article. However, international data published by the United Nations and the National Science Academy points out that America has not benefited over Europe where the growing of GMOs is prohibited.

Les Echos (Lucie Roquebain), 22/11/2016. 

CRISPR Cas9 genome editing technique “can reproduce natural protective mutations in cultivated plants”. Consequently, a team of Israeli scientists has made a species of cucumber resistant to harvest pest viruses by mutating a single gene with CRISPR. A Scottish team modified the genome of the Arabidopsis thaliana plant model to protect against the same type of virus.

CRISPR Cas9 “is considerably less time-consuming” compared to techniques used up until now to produce GMO products. “A plant gene can be inactivated by blinding its entire genome to mutagenic chemical agents and then isolating plants with the desired property from amongst those muted”. Today, CRISPR Cas9 can “modify a known target gene directly and accurately”. This method avoids crossing cultivated varieties “with wild plants where mutation has been identified, which would then impose years of selection in order to obtain interesting hybrids”.

Another advantage welcomed by scientists is the fact that, “unlike transgenic plants, this type of plant has no foreign DNA in its genome and cannot be distinguished from a natural mutant or a traditional variety”. However, for Jean-Stéphane Joly, Tefor[1] infrastructure co-ordinator, the changes introduced with CRISPR are not neutral and traceability is made “much more difficult”. He suggests “naming these organisms differently, e.g. GEMOs, genome-edited modified organisms, to help the general public distinguish them from GMOs”.

He is therefore calling for a public debate and new legislation because there is “a definite risk” that this technique could be used by anyone in a less benevolent manner, resulting in “catastrophic and irresponsible handling”. He regrets the fact that the subject has not been “done and dusted” in France.

The American Culture Minister authorised the cultivation of plants genetically modified by CRISPR from 2010 onwards. In Europe, “discussions on whether or not the production of these plants should be regulated have been deferred until the end of the year by the European Commission”.

[1] Transgenesis for functional studies on model organisms

Le Figaro, Pierre Kaldy (6/07/2016)

The American Science Academies have published a report concluding that “the release of genetically modified mosquitoes into the natural environment to combat the spread of malaria, Zika and other infections transmitted by these insects is premature”even if the technique looks “promising”.

The “gene drive” involves the genetic modification of mosquitoes using the CRISPR-Cas9 tool and the dissemination of these modified genes amongst wild mosquito populations to make them resistant to infection caused by Plasmodium – the parasite responsible for malaria, the Zika virus or Dengue virus. The genetic changes would therefore be spread quickly and intentionally throughout a mosquito population. This genetic trait would be transmitted from one generation to the next and should therefore become hereditary (seeGenetically modified mosquitoes to eradicate malaria).

According to the report, this technology “has the potential to respond to environmental and public health problems”, but requires “more laboratory research and highly controlled tests in the natural environment”. In fact, it would fight malaria, the Zika virus and the dengue virus, and would “sustainably alter the organisms that destroy crops or carry diseases”. However, this technique “could also have unexpected harmful effects such as disrupting other species or creating ultra-resistant, harmful, invasive organisms” (seeConquering malaria using CRISPR-Cas9 – what impact will this have on biodiversity?). Moreover, “current legislation is inadequate to assess the potential risks and effects of this technique on the environment”. 

The Scientific Committee therefore calls for collaboration between the various research sectors involved to promote an understanding of the scientific, ethical and social consequences of the “gene drive”.

AFP (9/06/2016)

On Tuesday, the American Academy of Sciences published a study on GMO cultures and their risks to the environment and health. After analysing animal studies to assess the effects of chemical components contained in commercially available GMO foods, the Academy of Sciences confirmed that “GMO crops do not pose more risks than conventional crops”. However, long-term epidemiological studies have “not directly targeted the health-related effects of eating GMO foods such as soya or maize”.

Whilst therefore recognising the difficulty in detecting the “subtle or long-term” effects on health or the environment, members of the scientific committee “have not found any evidence to suggest a difference in human risk between commercialised GMO crops and conventional crops”. Obviously, some GMO crops under development “are specifically designed to benefit human health”.

However, the committee notes that “the resistance developed by harmful insects is a serious problem for agriculture”. The use of GMO techniques “has not reduced the diversity of plants and insects” and insect-resistant GMO crops are “beneficial to human health because they reduce the use of insecticides”.

Finally, the report recognises “that it is difficult, from this point onwards, to distinguish between new genetic engineering methods developed since the 1970s and conventional growing methods”. It emphasises the “importance of covering all new genomic techniques in an attempt to enhance the ability to detect the slightest unforeseen change in the characteristics of new varieties of crops, whether or not of GMO origin”.

AFP (17/05/2016)

Summoned for the first time to comment on a plant that had been genetically modified by CRISPR, the US Department of Agriculture deemed that its administration “did not have the power to regulate the cultivation of a Paris mushroom genetically modified using CRISPR”. It announced that it had “no legal basis to impose examination of the crop by the FDA” [1]. This “decision is tantamount to a green light to use the new variety”. However, the FDA may still decide to back-track on the subject.

Yinong Yang, a physiopathologist at Pennsylvania State University genetically edited a Paris mushroom “to increase its life cycle and therefore its shelf life/best before date”. To do this, he removed six genes from the mushroom that were “responsible for the brown colour that spreads on the surface of a cut fruit or vegetable”.

According to the USDA, this mushroom is not a genetically modified organism (GMO) because “no foreign virus or bacterium was added to the plant genome by transgenesis”. “Only six genes were removed” with CRISPR.

The American administration is nevertheless questioning itself “on the need to alter the regulatory process”.  The American Science Academy is leading an international think-tank on CRISPR. This is also a question asked by all developed countries but generating different answers. The European Union “must give detailed advice on this subject, which has been eagerly awaited for months by those in favour and those against”. In France, the“subject has triggered conflict within the Haut Conseil des Biotechnologies (High Biotechnology Council)” (see“Plants of the future” trigger lively debate at the French High Biotechnology Council). The stakes are high: “If new hybridisation techniques were not actually viewed as genetic modifications, they would escape current labelling and consumer information legislation required for GMO products”.

[1] Food and Drug Administration.

Sciences & Avenir (26/04/2016)

Despite criticisms from consumer associations (see A transgenic salmon authorised for consumption in the United States), in November 2015, the American Health Authorities authorised the consumption of genetically modified salmon. This was the “first transgenic animal in the world to be authorised for human consumption”. However, at the end of January 2016, “the FDA[1] did an about-turn and suspended the authorisation”.

About sixty food companies “announced that they did not want to sell this transgenic salmon on their shelves”. “Over two million” consumers also sent messages against this authorisation to the FDA.

Following these reactions, the FDA has suspended its authorisation “until labelling guidelines are published to inform end consumers”. This process could “take several years”.

[1] Food and Drug Administration.

InfoGM (6/02/2016)

On Thursday, the American Health Authorities authorised the consumption of a genetically modified salmon. The decision was taken by the Food and Drug Agency (FDA) despite criticism from consumer associations.

 The genetically modified salmon is a “new type of Atlantic salmon injected with a gene of the Pacific Chinook salmon for it to grow twice as fast”. “It can then reach its adult size after 16 to 18 months instead of 30 months for an Atlantic salmon”. The FDA considered that the AquAdvantage salmon “satisfied regulatory conditions” and was “fit for consumption”. The salmon was developed by AquaBounty Technologies, a biotechnology company based in the State of Massachusetts.

According to the health authorities, this salmon is “just as nourishing as other non-transgenic Atlantic salmon” and there are “no significant biological differences ‘between this fish and other salmon bred in the Atlantic’”.

 The claims put forward by associations with regard to the labelling of genetically modified salmon have not been considered. “According to American law, this is required only when there is ‘a material difference such as a different nutritional profile’ between the transgenic product and the similar natural product”.

 The salmon will be bred in two specific facilities in Canada and Panama.

AFP (19/11/2015)

A study published in the American Science Journal on Thursday 13 August revealed that a team of scientists at Stanford University, California, has succeeded in producing an opioid analgesic by genetically modifying baker’s yeast.

This study describes how the scientists managed to “genetically reprogram yeast so that these rapidly growing cells convert sugar into hydrocodone, an opioid derivative, in just three to five days”. “This new avenue paves the way for a novel production method which is much faster and potentially costs less than numerous plant-derived medicinal products”.

They also recognise the fact that this new manufacturing process could increase the clandestine production of analgesics, thereby exacerbating the problem of overconsumption of these types of products.

However, scientists state that “by reducing production costs, this technique should benefit less developed countries in particular where, according to the World Health Organisation, 5.5 billion people have little, if indeed any, access to analgesics”.

La parisienne (14/08/2015)